|
Raenir Salazar posted:Does anyone have a good source for a map of all the prefectures of china, and all the counties of china and also named in some english transliteration on the map? Try this: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
Sadly this doesn't have it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Sadly this doesn't have it. Can't you just zoom in on Google Maps? What are you looking for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
I think he wants a transliteration rather than pinyin, so even this "doesn't work":  I recommend you go to the Wikipedia page of each province, then click on the little voice button to hear it. Unless you know IPA, everyone's transliteration is going to vary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
There are no transliteration of most of the city/province names.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Can't you just zoom in on Google Maps? What are you looking for? This but with words.  Any words would do, I'd even take the hanzi so long as I could copy and paste it to see how it sounds. Basically I have a mod project to add some 300-400 provinces to EU4's map of China; I intend to merge most of these but at least it'd be a good starting point and I'd like to have reasonably accurate names of the area's. Worst case I've been using google maps and zooming in to the closest village/town/city I could find in the zone and using that but it isn't ideal. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
A map with all county names would be too large for a browser to handle. You have to do it yourself. Baidu map has separated province and county in the main interface. They are in Chinese though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Just go with different combinations of North/East/South/West/Mountain/River/Lake/Peace/Happy and you will be pretty on the mark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
This one is what you're looking for http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/china_admin_91.jpg
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
McDowell posted:This one is what you're looking for That the wrong link? I only see provinces. whatever7 posted:A map with all county names would be too large for a browser to handle. You have to do it yourself. I'm trying to work out the interface; that google maps dotted line poo poo for administrative divisions is stupidly hard to see though. White on yellow, really?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
The wikipedia pages for each of the provinces gives you a prefecture level map that has around 10 - 20 prefectures for each of the 30 odd provinces. I don't think you're going to get maps of all 3000 counties. e: Actually it looks like if you click through to each of the prefectures on wikipedia they give you a county map as well. V for Vegas fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
You could probably combine those in an SVG if you really want to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:The wikipedia pages for each of the provinces gives you a prefecture level map that has around 10 - 20 prefectures for each of the 30 odd provinces. I don't think you're going to get maps of all 3000 counties. Yup! I see it now, this works! Thanks. Jeoh posted:You could probably combine those in an SVG if you really want to. I'm not enough of a maps guy I think to really feel the need to do that since this works for what I'm doing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Yup! I see it now, this works! Thanks. If you want to show it on one single zoomable page, you are going to need google map type platform to handle it anyway. You might as well do it on google map custom map or use a third party mash up site that use google map as back end. I sometimes use http://www.umapper.com/ to display map on my blogs. It's basically google map with a different UI.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
France, Germany, Italy, and the UK said today they would join China's AIID bank which was set up to rival the U.S. created world bank. Don't know if that's big news or just a blip.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:France, Germany, Italy, and the UK said today they would join China's AIID bank which was set up to rival the U.S. created world bank. Don't know if that's big news or just a blip. It's potentially fairly big in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
It's big but probably not in the way the CCP wanted since all those countries are strong US allies and would have a not insignificant degree of influence in this new bank. It's less "China is pulling US allies out of America's orbit!" and more "US allies are trying to influence China's bank in such a way that it isn't exclusively an apparatus of Beijing."
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It's big but probably not in the way the CCP wanted since all those countries are strong US allies and would have a not insignificant degree of influence in this new bank. It's less "China is pulling US allies out of America's orbit!" and more "US allies are trying to influence China's bank in such a way that it isn't exclusively an apparatus of Beijing." This is the US-less counterpart of World Bank, next step, Brick version of IMF And one day, less corrupted version of FIFA. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Is it really a US-less counterpart of the World Bank if the wealthiest EU members, all of whom are strong US allies with similar policies to the US, are also members?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:France, Germany, Italy, and the UK said today they would join China's AIID bank which was set up to rival the U.S. created world bank. Don't know if that's big news or just a blip. We've got AIID!
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
The more I think about it the smarter it seems. European countries don't have interests in Asia-Pacific in the way that the US does so China can't use that as an excuse to keep them out, but the Europeans are sufficiently similar to the US and sufficiently economically powerful that their membership both undermines what Beijing likely intended for the bank to be (a tool they can use to bully their neighbors) and simultaneously imposes Western standards on the way that the bank is run that China probably can't live up to the way it is now, which forces China to either actively pursue reform or expose their corruption. In short, China wants to use this bank to project an image as a great power with international influence and global interests, and Western members of their bank gives it a degree of credibility which requires Beijing to actually take some responsibility that the CCP has always been reluctant to take. The AIIB was a bluff and it's being called.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It's big but probably not in the way the CCP wanted since all those countries are strong US allies and would have a not insignificant degree of influence in this new bank. It's less "China is pulling US allies out of America's orbit!" and more "US allies are trying to influence China's bank in such a way that it isn't exclusively an apparatus of Beijing." But wasn't US very much opposed to his allies joining AIIB? Like the rumours that US pressured South Korea and Australia into not joining and when UK and later France, Germany and Italy made it clear that they would be joining, US criticied them heavily. So it doesn't seem like that US is happy with the situation or am I missing somekind of 11 dimensional chess moves here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
The idea that China is somehow going to enslave even Africa and South America by providing credit is laughable. That only works if those countries have no alternative but China, but that's not true and won't be ever. Say China loans Zimbabwe however much money for infrastructure projects. What's China going to do if/when Zimbabwe takes their money and tells them to get bent? Western lenders won't care. They have no enforcement mechanism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Glah posted:But wasn't US very much opposed to his allies joining AIIB? Like the rumours that US pressured South Korea and Australia into not joining and when UK and later France, Germany and Italy made it clear that they would be joining, US criticied them heavily. From what I've seen all the US has actually done is grumble about it, which could be 11 dimensional chess because it not only ensures that China can't reject European applications by arguing that they're US plants but also gives the bank additional responsibility (due to it not having the world's largest and most influential economy in it), which as I said above is bad for China because China is not ready nor willing to actually be a large stakeholder in a global economic institution, they are far more interested in being perceived as one but without the responsibility of actually being one. If the US or EU actually thought the AIIB posed a serious threat to their economic hegemony we'd be seeing a much different reaction to it. icantfindaname posted:The idea that China is somehow going to enslave even Africa and South America by providing credit is laughable. That only works if those countries have no alternative but China, but that's not true and won't be ever. Say China loans Zimbabwe however much money for insfrastructure projects. What's China going to do if/when Zimbabwe takes their money and tells them to get bent? Western lenders won't care. They have no enforcement mechanism. If Zimbabwe nationalized a bunch of Chinese assets in the country and told China to get bent it would set a precedent that would be bad for the West as well if it went unchallenged, as much as I like seeing Beijing squirm. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:From what I've seen all the US has actually done is grumble about it, which could be 11 dimensional chess because it not only ensures that China can't reject European applications by arguing that they're US plants but also gives the bank additional responsibility (due to it not having the world's largest and most influential economy in it), which as I said above is bad for China because China is not ready nor willing to actually be a large stakeholder in a global economic institution, they are far more interested in being perceived as one but without the responsibility of actually being one. But if that were the case, why did the US forbid SK and Australia from joining? Wouldn't more trojan horses be better? Not to mention this kind of public spat, even if it were just for show, has a real effect on the image about foreign relations. Dunno, it just seems more likely that US and EU, for all of their co-operation, sometimes have differing economical interests. Like UK is most likely thinking about the City, Germany about Frankfurt etc. And doing business with China is profitable, and that is more important for EU than what the US happens to think. So maybe EU is thinking that AIIB is an opportunity for them while US thinks it as a threat, and that seems to be the most common reading about it in the media. But eh, anything is of course possible so who knows..
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The idea that China is somehow going to enslave even Africa and South America by providing credit is laughable. That only works if those countries have no alternative but China, but that's not true and won't be ever. Say China loans Zimbabwe however much money for infrastructure projects. What's China going to do if/when Zimbabwe takes their money and tells them to get bent? Western lenders won't care. They have no enforcement mechanism. That's why China mostly invest in countries that have bad human right record and have burnt their bridges with World Bank.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Glah posted:But if that were the case, why did the US forbid SK and Australia from joining? Wouldn't more trojan horses be better? Not to mention this kind of public spat, even if it were just for show, has a real effect on the image about foreign relations. As far as I can tell there isn't actually any proof that SK and Australia declined to join because the US told them not to, it's been suggested by a number of experts and pundits however. I don't really see why the US would exert pressure on them though because by default the AIIB was never going to include Japan, and any Asia-based economic organization that doesn't include Japan is a joke by default. It's possible that they declined to join because both countries are less powerful and close neighbours of China, while the Europeans are both strong and distant. The Australians and South Koreans have more to be concerned about with a more assertive China than Europe does. quote:Dunno, it just seems more likely that US and EU, for all of their co-operation, sometimes have differing economical interests. Like UK is most likely thinking about the City, Germany about Frankfurt etc. And doing business with China is profitable, and that is more important for EU than what the US happens to think. So maybe EU is thinking that AIIB is an opportunity for them while US thinks it as a threat, and that seems to be the most common reading about it in the media. But eh, anything is of course possible so who knows.. Yeah, but joining the AIIB isn't a prerequisite for doing business in China, especially as far as the wealthy West is concerned. Keep in mind I'm not suggesting some backdoor conspiracy here, it could very well be that the Europeans saw it as being in their economic interest. I'm more arguing that this isn't as good for China as it looks and, more pertinently, isn't a sign of waning US economic or political influence abroad, especially as the Chinese economy slows while the US economy rallies. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:If Zimbabwe nationalized a bunch of Chinese assets in the country and told China to get bent it would set a precedent that would be bad for the West as well if it went unchallenged, as much as I like seeing Beijing squirm. I'm not as sure about that as you are. Especially considering the Chinese financial network would presumably be completely separated from the Western one and quasi-criminal, only dealing with rogue states and ones with poo poo credit in the legitimate system to begin with. whatever7 posted:That's why China mostly invest in countries that have bad human right record and have burnt their bridges with World Bank. They still won't be able to do anything more than simply not giving those countries any more money, though. The Chinese CIA won't be deposing third world leaders to get their money back. At best they'll be able to influence rogue and failed states, which gives them what? North Korea and a few African shitholes? Iran and Russia could and would stab China in the back the second it was in their interests. They can't compete with the US/West, the best they can do is be a thorn in its side icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:
What you are describing is Washington Consensus. "Not interfering with bad state's politic" is Beijing's selling point they print on their business card when they go around and buy resources from poor and corrupted states. Look up on the difference between "Washington Consensus" and "Beijing Consensus."
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:This is the US-less counterpart of World Bank, next step, Brick version of IMF I remember reading or hearing at some point that the Chinese national soccer league is comically corrupt. Like somehow even worse than FIFA. Like match fixing is insanely obvious. But I am American and do not care about soccer at all so I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:What you are describing is Washington Consensus. "Not interfering with bad state's politic" is Beijing's selling point they print on their business card when they go around and buy resources from poor and corrupted states. Both positions and parties are laughably evil, corrupt and self serving. The difference is China complains more loudly when you point this out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:Both positions and parties are laughably evil, corrupt and self serving. The difference is China complains more loudly when you point this out. Any comparison between the US and China in this regard is laughable right on its face.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:From what I've seen all the US has actually done is grumble about it, which could be 11 dimensional chess because it not only ensures that China can't reject European applications by arguing that they're US plants but also gives the bank additional responsibility (due to it not having the world's largest and most influential economy in it), which as I said above is bad for China because China is not ready nor willing to actually be a large stakeholder in a global economic institution, they are far more interested in being perceived as one but without the responsibility of actually being one. Grace Mugabe does that, its civil war for Zim. Only reason Mugabe survived so long is that he's played ball with China, from destroying the trade unions and wrecking the African texile market, to extemely favorable platinum deals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
China will never be a major power until they invent/enforce jaywalking laws. (Also have those weird motor trikes be either on the sidewalk or on the street, not both)
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:Both positions and parties are laughably evil, corrupt and self serving. The difference is China complains more loudly when you point this out. Shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world, and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:France, Germany, Italy, and the UK said today they would join China's AIID bank which was set up to rival the U.S. created world bank. Don't know if that's big news or just a blip. Because the Euro was such a great idea and surely lightning doesn't strike twice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:I remember reading or hearing at some point that the Chinese national soccer league is comically corrupt. Like somehow even worse than FIFA. Like match fixing is insanely obvious. They're really bad at being corrupt too, on a comical level that includes messing up their own plans by scoring more points than they should have. This is a feat in soccer where games are usually low scoring affairs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Chickenwalker posted:Because the Euro was such a great idea and surely lightning doesn't strike twice. I might be dumb here, but I don't see how this is like the Euro? Isn't this an alternative to the IMF/World Bank, as opposed to common monetary policy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
China hyping up a Chinese-led alternative to the IMF is really weird because you'd think that they'd want to conceal their corruption, not flaunt it. It's one of the reasons why I think that the Chinese wanted it to ultimately fail and only have a bunch of weaker neighbours join, I don't think they expected actual countries with powerful, competitive, economies and non-corrupt as gently caress leadership to join.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 04:47
|
|